f.'lo.'o'l 


^  PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


Presented    bT^CO^  ~B~S.\lu(:^rV\<2^Va  ,"^-T 
Dwi.non .'?rrr'..TTV«*^ 


1890.]  Have  tJie  Qiiakers  Prevailed?  325 


R)-iM-^'^^^^ 


J^O^^iO^  . 


ARTICLE    IX. 

HAVE  THE  QUAKERS  PREVAILED? 


BY  THE  REV.  PROFESSOR   CHARLES  A.TBRIGGS,  D.D., 
UNION  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY. 

In  the  seventeenth  century,  Presbyterians  and  Congre- 
gationalists,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  determine,  were 
unanimous  in  the  opinion  that  the  heathen  and  their  in- 
fants were  doomed  to  everlasting  fire.  The  Baptists 
pressed  the  doctrine  of  the  salvation  of  their  unbaptized 
children  as  the  children  of  believers ;  but  they  did  not 
teach  the  salvation  of  the  heathen  and  their  babes.  It  was 
first  the  Latitudinarians  of  the  Church  of  England,  and 
then  the  so-called  Quakers,  or  Friends,  as  they  called 
themselves,  who  are  entitled  to  the  credit  of  opening  up 
the  doctrine  of  the  universal  salvation  of  children,  and 
the  partial  salvation  of  the  heathen.  This  was  made  pos- 
sible by  the  great  stress  they  laid  upon  the  Light  of  na- 
ture, and  "the  Light  which  lighteth  every  man  that  com- 
eth  into  the  world  "  (John  i.  9). 

I.    CULVERWELL  AND  TUCKNEV. 

Nathaniel  Culyerwell  published  his  book  entitled 
"Light  of  Nature,"  in  1652,  in  which  he  advocated  the 
salvation  of  some  of  the  heathen.  He  was  immediately 
attacked  by  Anthony  Tuckney,  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee that  composed  the  Westminster  Shorter  Catechism, 
in  a  sermon  at  Cambridge,  July  4,  1652.  This  was  pub- 
lished in  1654  under  the  title  "None  but  Christ,"  with  an 
Appendix  discussing  the  salvation  of  "(1)  heathen;  (2) 


326  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed?  [April, 

those  of  the  Old  World  ;  the  Jews  and  others  before 
Christ,  and  (3)  such  as  die  infants  and  idiots,  etc.,  now 
under  the  gospel." 

Culverwell  states  his  views  cautiously  as  follows  : — 

"  Yet  notwithstanding  their  censure  is  too  harsh  and  rigid,  who  as  if 
they  were  judges  of  eternal  life  and  death,  damne  Plato  and  Aristotle 
without  any  question,  without  any  delay  at  all ;  and  do  as  confidently 
pronounce  that  they  are  in  hell,  as  if  they  saw  them  flaming  there. 
Whereas  the  infinite  goodnesse  and  wisdome  of  God  might  for  ought  we 
know  finde  out  several  ways  of  saving  such  by  the  pleonasmes  of  his  love 
in  Jesus  Christ ;  he  might  make  a  Socrates  a  branch  of  the  true  Vine,  and 
might  graffe  Plato  and  Aristotle  into  the  fruitful  olive  ;  for  it  was  in  his 
power,  if  he  pleased,  to  reveal  Christ  unto  them,  and  to  infuse  faith  into 
them  after  an  extraordinary  manner  ;  though  indeed  the  Scripture  does 
not  afford  our  charity  any  sufficient  ground  to  believe  that  he  did ;  nor 
doth  it  warrant  us  peremptorily  to  conclude  the  contrary.  Secreta  DeOy 
it  does  not  much  concern  us  to  know  what  became  of  them  ;  let  us  then 
forbear  our  censure,  and  leave  them  to  their  competent  Judge. 

"  Yet  I  am  farre  from  the  minde  of  those  patrons  of  Universal  Grace, 
that  make  all  men  in  an  equal  propinquity  to  salvation,  whether  Jews, 
or  Pagans,  or  Christians,  which  is  nothing  but  dight  and  guilded  Pelagian- 
isme,  whilst  it  makes  grace  as  extensive  and  Catholick,  a  principle  of 
as  full  latitude  as  nature  is,  and  resolves  all  the  difference  into  created 
powers  and  faculties.  This  makes  the  barren  places  of  the  world  in  as 
good  a  condition  as  the  Garden  of  God,  as  the  inclosure  of  the  Church. 
It  puts  a  Philosopher  in  as  good  an  estate  as  an  Apostle ;  for  if  the  reme- 
dium  salutiferum  be  equally  applied  to  all  by  God  himself,  and  happi- 
nesse  depends  only  upon  men's  regulating  and  composing  of  their  facul- 
ties ;  how  then  comes  a  Christian  to  be  neerer  to  the  Kingdome  of  Heav- 
en than  an  Indian  ?  is  there  no  advantage  by  the  light  of  the  Gospel 
shining  among  men  with  healing  under  its  wings?  Surely  though  the 
free  grace  of  God  may  possibly  pick  and  choose  an  heathen  sometimes, 
yet  certainly  he  does  there  more  frequently  pour  his  goodnesse  into  the 
soul  where  he  lets  it  streame  out  more  clearly  and  conspicuously  in  ex- 
ternal manifestations.  'Tis  an  evident  signe  that  God  intends  more  salva- 
tion there,  where  he  affords  more  means  of  salvation  ;  if  then  God  do 
choose  and  call  an  Heathen,  'tis  not  by  universal,  but  by  distinguishing 
grace."* 

To  this  argument  Tuckney  replies  as  follows  : — 

"  I.  It  cannot  rationally  be  said,  that  there  was  an  equall  invincibility 
of  ignorance  in  those  Heathens,  to  that  which  is  in  Infants  and  distracted 

*Light  of  Nature,  by  Nathaniel  Culverwell  (London,  1652),  pp.  208-210. 


1890.]  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed?  327 

persons,  which  want  the  use  of  reason,  which  they  had ;  and  therefore 
might  have  made  more  use  of  it  than  they  did;  and  therefore  their  sin 
was  more  wilful,  and  so  made  them  more  obnoxious  to  God''s  wrath, 
which  therefore  these  Infants,  etc.,  ashless  guilty,  may  in  reason  better 
escape. 

"  2.  How  God  worketh  in,  or  dealeth  with  elect  Infants,  which  dye  in 
their  infancy  (for  anything  that  I  have  found)  the  Scripture  speaks  not 
so  much,  or  so  evidently,  as  for  me  (or  it  may  be  for  any)  to  make  any 
clear  or  firm  determination  of  it.  But  yet  so  much  as  that  we  have 
thence  ground  to  believe,  that  they  being  in  the  Covenant,  they  have 
the  benefit  of  it  (Acts  iii.  25;  Gen.  xvii.  7). 

*'  Whether  God  may  not  work  and  act  faith  in  them  then,  (as  he  made 
John  Baptist  leap  in  the  womb)  which  Beza,  and  others  of  our  Divines 
deny,  and  others  are  not  unwilling  to  grant,  I  dare  not  peremptorily  de- 
termine. Yet  this  I  may  say,  that  he  acteth  in  the  souls  of  believers  in 
articulo  mortis,  when  some  of  ^them  are  as  little  able  to  put  forth  an  act 
of  reason,  as  they  were  in  artiailo  nativitatis.  But  the  Scripture  (for  any- 
thing that  I  know)  speaks  not  of  this,  and  therefore  I  forbear  to  speak 
anything  of  it. 

"  Only  (as  I  said)  it  giveth  us  ground  to  believe,  that  they  being  in  the 
Covenant  may  be  so  wrapt  up  in  it,  as  also  to  be  wrapt  up  in  the  btindle 
of  life,  and  did  it  give  us  but  as  good  hopes  of  the  Heathens  (of  whom  it 
rather  speaks  very  sadly)  as  it  doth  of  such  Infants,  I  should  be  as  for- 
ward as  any  to  persuade  myself  and  others,  that  they  were  in  a  hopeful 
condition. 

"  For  such  infants,  suppose  they  have  not  actual  faith,  so  as  to  exert 
it,  yet  they  may  have  it  infused  in  the  habit,  they  are  born  in  the  Church, 
and  in  the  Covejiant,  and  what  the  faith  of  the  Church,  and  of  their  be- 
lieving^ parents  may  avail  them,  I  do  not  now  particularly  enquire  into  !  ,  . 

"And  whereas  mention  was  made  of  an  anticipating  and  preventing 
grace  of  God,  by  which  without  faith  he  might  be  saved;  I  conceive  and  be* 
lieve  that  it  is  ahwrvAdini  atiticipating  and prez'enting  grace,  when  either  in 
Him  or  in  any,  God  beginneth  and  worketh  faith  to  lay  hold  on  Christ. 
But  such  a  preventing  grace  as  to  accept  us  for  Chrisfs  sake  without  faith 
in  Christ,  the  Scripture  mentioneth  not,  is  a  new  notionoi  a.  young  Divine, 
which  without  better  proof  must  not  command  our  belief,  or  impose 
upon  our  credulity."^ 

Tuckney  represents  the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  di- 
vines that  constituted  the  Westminster  Assembly  in  this 
rejection  of  the  heathen  and  their  infants  from  the  bene- 
fits of  redemption.  The  children  of  believers  were  the 
children  of  the  covenant,  and  were  therefore^  entitled  to 

*None  but  Christ,  pp.  134-137. 


328  Have  the  Quakers  Ptcvailcd ?  [April, 

baptism  as  the  heirs  of  the  grace  of  God.  l^ut  the  chil- 
dren of  the  heathen  were  with  their  parents  outside  the 
bonds  of  the  covenant,  and  altogether  beyond  the  realm 
of  grace.  Even  within  the  bonds  of  the  covenant,  the 
election  of  grace  must  prevail.  And  therefore  it  was  not 
certain  how  many  of  the  infants  of  believers  belonged  to 
the  elect.  I  have  recently  given  extracts ^  from  leading 
Westminster  divines  showing  their  unanimous  belief  in 
the  damnation  of  the  heathen  and  their  babes,  I  have  cited 
Stephen  Marshall,  2  the  great  preacher  ;  William  Twisse,  ^ 
the  prolocutor  of  the  Assembly  ;  Cornelius  Burgess,^  the 
accessor  or  vice-president;  Robert  Baylie^  and  Samuel 
Rutherford,^  two  of  the  Scottish  commissioners ;  An- 
thony Burgess'^  and  William  Carter,  ^  who  expressly  teach 
the  damnation  of  infants  and  the  heathen.  No  one  has 
ever  been  able  to  point  to  a  single  Westminster  divine 
who  did  not  teach  this  doctrine.  Dr.  Krauth  has 
recently  given  extracts  from  representative  Calvinistic 
divines  of  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  and 
shown  that  it  was  the  unusual  orthodox  position  in  the 
Calvinistic  churches  that  the  infants  not  embraced  in  the 
covenant  were  sent  to  the  pains  of  hell.  ^  Accordingly 
we  find  in  the  Westminster  Confession  the  following 
statement  of  doctrine  : — 

III.  "  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and  saved  by 
Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  he 
pleaseth.  So  also  are  all  other  elect  persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being 
outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  word." 

IV.  "Others,  not  elected,  although  they  may  be  called  by  the  minis- 
try of  the  word,  and  may  have  some  common  operations  of  the  Spirit, 
yet  they  never  truly  come  to  Christ,  and  therefore    cannot    be  saved  : 

^Whither,  p.  121  et  seq.     ^Defence  of  Infant  Baptism  (1646).  pp.  87,  88. 

^Riches  of  God's  Love  (1653),  p.  135. 

''Baptismal  Regeneration  of  Elect  Infants  (1629),  pp.  21,  33. 

^Catechesis  Elenctica  Errorum  (1654),  p.  36. 

*Tryal  and  Triumph  of  Faith  (1645),  p.  36.     'Vindiciae  Legis  (1647),  pp.  80,  81. 

^Covenant  of  God  with  Abraham  (1654),  pp.  101,  102. 

®C.  P.  Krauth,  Infant  Baptism  and  Infant  Salvation  (Phila.  1874). 


iSpo.j  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed  ?  329 

much  less  can  men,  not  professing  the  Christian  religion,  be  saved  in 
any  other  way  whatsoever,  be  they  never  so  diligent  to  frame  their  lives 
according  to  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  law  of  that  religion  they  do  pro- 
fess ;  and  to  assert  and  maintain  that  they  may  is  very  pernicious,  and 
to  be  detested. "1 

The  Larger  Catechism  has  nothing  to  say  about  elect 
infants,  but  teaches  that  the  heathen  cannot  be  saved. 

"  They  who  having  never  heard  the  gospel,  know  not  Jesus  Christ, 
and  believe  not  in  him,  cannot  be  saved,  be  they  never  so  diligent  to 
frame  their  lives  according  to  the  light  of  nature,  or  the  laws  of  that  re- 
ligion which  they  profess  ;  neither  is  there  salvation  in  any  other,  but 
in  Christ  alone,  who  is  the  Saviour  only  of  his  body  the  church. "^ 

II.     DR.  SHEDD's  theories. 

Dr.  Shedd  has  recently  interpreted  these  sections  of 
the  Westminster  Confession  and  Larger  Catechism  as 
teaching  the  universal  salvation  of  infants  dying  in  in- 
fancy and  the  salvation  of  elect  heathen. 

I.   Dr.  Shedd  says: — 

"That  this  is  the  correct  understanding  of  the  Westminster  Standards 
is  corroborated  by  the  fact  that  the  Calvinism  of  the  time  held  that  God 
has  his  elect  among  the  heathen.  The  Second  Helvetic  Confession 
(i.  7),  teaches  it.  Zanchius,  whose  treatise  on  '  Predestination  '  is  of 
the  strictest  type,  asserts  it.  Witsius  and  others  suggest  that  the  grace 
of  God  in  election  is  wide  and  far  reaching.  The  elder  Calvinists  held 
with  the  strictest  rigor  that  no  man  is  saved  outside  of  the  circle  of  election 
and  regeneration,  but  they  did  not  make  that  circle  to  be  the  small,  nar- 
row, insignificant  circumference  which  their  opponents  charge  upon 
them.  And  there  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the  Westminster  Assem- 
bly differed  from  the  Calvinism  of  the  time."^ 

This  statement  contains  two  false  premises,  and  there- 
fore a  false  conclusion.  The  chief  portion  of  the  major 
premise  is  that  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession  teaches  that 
God  has  his  elect  among  the  heathen.  But  the  Second 
Helvetic  Confession  teaches  no  such  doctrine.  It  sim- 
ply teaches  the  common  Calvinistic  doctrine  that  the 
grace  of  God  is  free  and  is  not  confined  to  external  means. 

^Confession  of  Faith,  Chap.  x.  sect.  3,  4.       ^-phe  Larger  Catechism,  Q.  60. 
*  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  p.  22. 


330  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed?  [April, 

Dr.  Shedd  infers  from  this  statement  that  this  Confes- 
sion teaches  that  some  heathen  are  elect.  But  this  infer- 
ence is  not  sustained  by  the  language  of  the  Confession, 
or  the  history  of  opinion  at  the  time  when  that  Confes- 
sion was  framed.  Dr.  Shedd  does  not  give  us  the  pas- 
sage of  Zanchius  in  which  he  asserts  the  doctrine  of  elect 
heathen.  Witsius  was  a  divine  of  a  later  generation. 
The  "  others"  are  not  mentioned.  Dr.  Shedd's  interpre- 
tation of  the  Second  Helvetic  Confession  makes  us  doubt 
whether  he  really  has  any  others  to  produce.  His  major 
premise  has  not  the  slightest  foundation  in  fact.  His 
minor  premise — "There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  the 
Westminster  Assembly  differed  from  the  Calvinism  of  the 
time,"  may  seem  plausible  to  those  who  have  not  studied 
the  Westminster  divines,  but  any  one  who  has  studied 
them  knows  that  there  are  good  reasons  for  believing 
that  the  divines  of  that  Assembly  differed  in  many  im- 
portant respects  from  the  Swiss  and  Dutch  Calvinists  of 
the  time.  The  conclusion  drawn  from  these  foreign  di- 
vines that  the  Westminster  divines  believed  that  there 
were  elect  heathen  is  therefore  without  foundation. 
There  is  no  evidence  that  the  Continental  divines  of  the 
seventeenth  century  believed  in  elect  heathen.  The  evi- 
dence is  all  the  other  way.  ^ 

2.  Dr.  Shedd  presents  the  following  interpretation  of 
the  Westminster  statement : — 

"  We  contend  that  the  Confession  so  understands  the  Word  of  God, 
in  its  declaration  that  there  are  some  '  elect  persons  [other  than  infants] 
who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word.' 
To  refer  the  '  incapacity '  here  spoken  of  to  that  of  idiots  and  insane 
persons,  is  an  example  of  the  unnatural  exegesis  of  the  Standards  to 
which  we  have  alluded.  This  explanation  is  objectionable  for  two  rea- 
sons. First,  idiots  and  maniacs  are  not  moral  agents,  and  therefore  as 
such  are  neither  damnable  nor  salvable.     They  would  be  required  to  be 

^There  are  at  hand  more  than  eight  hundred  distinct  writings  of  the  Westmin- 
ster divines.  It  would  be  more  to  the  purpose  if  Dr.  Shedd  could  present  some 
evidence  from  these  writings  in  favor  of  his  interpretation.  We  are  sure  that  he 
cannot  find  any  such  evidence. 


1890.]  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed?  331 

made  rational  and  sane,  before  they  could  be  classed  with  the  rest  of 
mankind.  It  is  utterly  improbable  that  the  Assembly  took  into  account 
this  very  small  number  of  individuals  respecting  v/hose  destiny  so  little 
is  known.  It  would  be  like  taking  into  account  abortions  and  untimely 
births.  Secondly,  these  '  elect  persons  who  are  incapable  of  being  out- 
wardly called  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word,'  are  contrasted  in  the  im- 
mediate context  with  'others  not  elected,'  who  'although  they  may  be 
called  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word,  never  truly  come  to  Christ;  '  that 
is  to  say,  they  are  contrasted  with  rational  and  sane  adults  in  evangel- 
ized regions.  But  idiots  and  maniacs  could  not  be  put  into  such  a  con- 
trast. The  '  incapacity '  therefore  must  be  that  of  circumstances,  not 
of  mental  faculty.  A  man  in  the  heart  of  unevangelized  Africa  is  inca- 
pable of  hearing  the  written  Word,  in  the  sense  that  a  man  in  New  York 
is  incapable  of  hearing  the  roar  of  London. "^ 

It  is  a  very  strange  doctrine  of  Dr.  Shedd  that  "  idiots 
and  maniacs  are  not  moral  agents,  and  therefore  as  such 
neither  damnable  nor  salvable. "  The  Calvinism  of  the 
seventeenth  century  held  no  such  doctrine.  And  it  is 
not  common  among  modern  divines.  The  Westminster 
divines  did  not  agree  with  Dr.  Shedd  that  abortions  and 
untimely  births  should  not  be  taken  into  account  in  the 
work  of  redemption.  It  was  just  these  idiots  and  maniacs 
that  the  Westminster  divines  had  in  mind  in  the  term 
"  other  elect  persons  who  are  incapable  of  being  out- 
wardly called  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word"  as  we  see 
from  the  words  of  Anthony  Tuckney  quoted  above. 
Tuckney  speaks  of  * '  infants  and  distracted  persons  which 
want  the  use  of  reason  "  and  contrasts  such  elect  ones 
with  the  heathen.  These  few  words  of  Tuckney,  who 
had  so  much  to  do  with  the  construction  of  the  Westmin- 
ster Standards,  are  worth  a  thousand  pages  of  theorizing 
and  speculation  as  to  what  the  Westminster  divines  must 
have  thought  and  must  have  designed  to  say. 

3.  Dr.  Shedd  endeavors  to  prove  that  the  Westmin- 
ster divines  meant  that  infants  dying  in  infancy  were 
elected  as  a  class. 

"  We  have  already  seen  that  i\iQ  proposed  omission  of  preterition,  so    as 
^  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  p.  20. 


332  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed  f  [April, 

to  leave  only  election  in  the  case  of  adults,  would  make  their  election 
universal,  and  save  the  whole  class  without  exception.  The  actual  omis- 
sion of  it  by  the  Assembly  in  the  case  of  dying  infants  has  the  same  ef- 
fect. It  is  morally  certain  that  if  the  Assembly  had  intended  to  dis- 
criminate between  elect  and  non-elect  infants,  as  they  do  between  elect 
and  non-elect  adults,  they  would  have  taken  pains  to  do  so,  and  would 
have  inserted  a  corresponding  clause  concerning  infant  preterition  to  in- 
dicate it."  1 

Here  again  the  major  premise  is  at  fault.  Dr.  Shedd 
has  not  shown  that  "the  proposed  omission  of  preteri- 
tion so  as  to  leave  only  election  in  the  case  of  adults, 
would  make  their  election  universal,  and  save  the  whole 
class  without  exception."  He  admits  that  the  Thirty- 
nine  Articles,  the  First  Helvetic  Confession,  and  the 
Heidelberg  Catechism  do  not  specify  preterition,  but  only 
imply  it  in  their  specification  of  election  (pp.  7,  8).  The 
omission  of  preterition  in  these  creeds  does  not  therefore 
make  election  universal,  and  if  it  does  not  in  these  creeds, 
the  omission  will  not  make  election  universal  in  the  West- 
minster Confession.  Election  is,  and  must  be,  particular 
and  individual.  Classical  election  is  now  and  ever  has 
been  an  Arminian  doctrine,  whether  we  think  of  classes 
of  babes  or  classes  of  adults.  Dr.  Shedd's  minor  prem- 
ise is  correct.  There  is  no  specification  of  the  reproba- 
tion of  infants  dying  in  infancy.  But  this  omission  of 
specification  of  the  preterition  of  infants  dying  in  infancy 
no  more  implies  the  election  of  such  infants  as  a  class, 
than  the  omission  of  specification  of  the  preterition  of 
adults  in  the  Thirty-nine  Articles  implies  the  election  of 
adults  as  a  class.  The  divine  election  is  an  election  of 
individuals.  And  it  is  just  the  elaboration  of  this  individ- 
ual election  and  preterition  by  the  Westminster  divines 
that  makes  the  third  chapter  of  the  Confession  distasteful 
to  the  men  of  our  times.  "Their  number  is  so  certain 
and  definite  that  it  cannot  be  either  increased  or  di- 
minished." 2     Westminster    Confession    iii.    4   is  a  hard 

'Presbyterian  and  Reformed    Review,  p.  23.     2 Westminster  Confession,  iii.  4. 


1890.]  Have  the  Quakers  Pfevailed  ?  333 

doctrine.  Such  language  is  not  suited  to  the  classical 
election  of  infants  dying  in  infancy,  making  up  a  very 
considerable  portion  of  the  human  race  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  world. 

All  these  arguments  constructed  in  order  to  prove  that 
the  Westminster  Standards  teach  the  modern  doctrine  of 
elect  heathen  and  the  universal  salvation  of  infants  dying  in 
infancy,  are  arguments  that  shatter  themselves  on  the 
hard  rocks  of  the  words  of  the  Westminster  divines 
themselves.  Not  one  Westminster  divine  has  been  found 
who  teaches  that  there  are  elect  heathen,  or  that  all  in- 
fants dying  in  infancy  are  saved.  The  grammatical  and 
historical  interpretation  prevail  over  recent  dogmatic  in- 
terpretations which  are  nothing  more  than  the  injection  of 
modern  theories  into  ancient  creeds. 

III.       KEITH  AND  THE  BOSTON  MINISTERS. 

The  Quakers  had  a  great  deal  to  do  with  the  spreading 
of  the  doctrine  of  the  salvation  of  the  heathen  and  their 
babes.     Thus  W^illiam  Penn  says  : — 

♦'  That  though  God  was  more  beneficent  to  the  Jew  (especially  to  the 
Christian)  than  the  Gentile,  and  consequently  that  as  the  Jew  had  those 
assistances  the  Gentile  had  not,  so  the  Christian  Dispensation  is  the  Per- 
fection of  the  Divine  Light,  Life  and  Immortality,  more  weakly  seen  by 
Jew  and  Gentile;  yet  also, that  God  did  communicate  to  the  Gentiles  such 
a  measure  of  his  divine  Light  and  Spirit,  as  diligently  adhered  to,  and 
faithfully  followed,  was  sufficient  to  their  salvation,  from  sin  here,  and 
consequently  from  Wrath  to  come:  And  that  they  themselves  did  so  be- 
lieve, teach,  live  and  die,  in  perfect  hope  and  full  assurance  of  eternal 
recompense,  in  a  state  of  Immortality."  * 

The  views  of  the  Quakers  as  to  the  redemption  of  the 
heathen  and  their  babes  came  into  conflict  with  the  Pres- 
byterian and  Congregational  orthodoxy  in  a  controversy 
between  George  Keith  and  the  Boston  ministers  in  1689 
and  1690.  George  Keith  was  first  brought  up  for  the 
Presbyterian  ministry  in  Scotland,  then  about  1664 
adopted  the  views  of  the  Friends,  and  was  imprisoned  for 

1  The  Christian  Quaker  (1674),  Vol.  i.  p.  85. 


334  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed  f  [April, 

his  faith.  He  labored  in  America  as  a  Friend  from  1685 
to  1690.  He  was  the  father  of  a  schism  of  the  Friends, 
called  the  Keithites  or  Christian  Quakers.  He  afterwards 
united  with  the  Church  of  England,  and  became  one  of 
the  chief  instruments  in  founding  the  Episcopal  Church 
in  America.  While  still  a  Friend  he  entered  into  contro- 
versy with  the  Presbyterians  of  Maryland  and  Virginia 
and  with  the  Congregationalists  of  New  England.  His 
chief  controversial  work  was  published  at  Philadelphia 
in  1689,  entitled  "The  Presbyterian  and  Independent 
Visible  Churches  in  New  England  and  elsewhere  brought 
to  the  Test."  This  was  answered  by  the  Boston  ministers 
in  a  book  entitled  "  The  Principles  of  the  Protestant  Re- 
ligion maintained.  And  Churches  of  New  England  in  the 
Profession  and  Exercise  thereof  defendedagainst  the  Cal- 
umnies of  one  George  Keith,  a  Quaker,  in  a  Book  lately 
published  at  Pennsylvania  to  undermine  them  both" 
(Boston,  1690).  This  book  was  signed  by  James  Allen, 
Joshua  Moodey,  Samuel  Willard,  and  Cotton  Mather.  1 
This  controversy  brings  into  prominence  several'questions 
now  in  hot  debate  in  the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational 
churches.  It  is  a  mirror  that  will  reveal  to  the  disputants 
on  which  side  they  now  stand,  whether  with  the  Quaker 
of  1689,  or  the  orthodox  Presbyterian  and  Congrega- 
tional platform  as  stated  by  the  Boston  ministers  in  1690. 

(l)    THE  SALVATION  OF  INFANTS. 

Keith,  addressing  the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational 
churches,  says :  — 

"  Where  now  shall  these  men  find  any  place  in  Scripture  to  prove,  that 
there  are  any  reprobate  infants  ?or  that  any  infants  dying  in  infancy  go  to 
hell   and  perish   eternally,  only   for  Adam's  sin,  although  that  sin  was 

^These  were  all  men  of  fame,  the  most  eminent  American  ministers  of  their 
time.  Samuel  Willard  was  pastor  of  the  South  Church,  Boston,  and  Vice-Prin- 
cipal of  Harvard  College,  the  author  of  the  most  important  work  on  Dogmatic 
Theology  in  America  up  to  his  date.  His  body  of  Divinity  was  published  in 
1726. 


1890.]  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed  f  335 

forgiven  to  Adam,  and  thousands  more  equally  guilty  by  their  own  con- 
fession ?  "  (P.  84.) 

The  Boston  ministers  reply  : — 

"  Here  we  are  challenged  to  prove  that  there  are  reprobate  infants,  or 
such  as  go  to  hell  for  Adam's  sin  only,  to  which  we  reply,  i.  He  himself 
grants  (p,  88)  that  men  generally  (and  why  not  universally  ?)  are  children 
of  wrath  by  nature  ;  and  he  will  not  deny  but  that  by  nature  is  intended 
that  natural  condition  they  were  born  into  the  world  in  (and  then  it  must 
needs  concern  infants  as  well  as  others)  and  this  too  is  by  Adam's  sin 
transferred  upon  them,  and  his  corrupt  image  communicated  to  them. 
2.  That  hence  children  in  their  natural  birth  are  under  a  sentence  of  con- 
demnation to  die,  is  a  necessary  consequence.  3.  That  God  hath  no- 
where revealed  to  us  that  he  hath  accepted  of  the  satisfaction  of  Christ 
for  all  that  die  in  their  infancy  ;  and  where  there  is  no  revelation  there 
is  no  ground  for  faith.  4.  That  there  is  merit  enough  for  damnation  in 
them,  else  it  would  be  unjust  that  they  should  be  under  condemnation. 
5.  That  this  sentence  hath  been  actually  executed  upon  some  infants 
(Rom.  V.  14),  they  never  sinned  actually,  and  yet  they  died,  and  it  was 
the  same  death  spoken  of  ver.  12.  If  therefore  the  text  which  some  of 
ours  use  (l  Cor.  vii.  14)  should  not  prove  it,  it  follows  not  that  no  other 
can  :  and  yet  we  suppose  there  is  thus  much  in  that  too,  viz.,  that  till 
parents  do  openly  profess  the  gospel  and  submit  to  it,  i.e.  as  long  as  they 
abide  in  their  gentilism,  their  children  were  also  unclean,  and  so  appar- 
ently lying  under  guilt  and  liable  to  eternal  death.  And  then  he  charg- 
eth  some  of  our  church  covenant,  for  glorying  that  none  of  their  chil- 
dren were  reprobates  while  'infants  ;  we  declare  it  to  be  a  slander :  we 
never  affixed  election  to  a  visible  relation  to  the  Church  of  Christ  "  (p. 
78^/  seq). 

These  four  representative  ministers,  the  most  eminent 
in  America  at  this  time,  endeavor  to  prove  that  the  chil- 
dren of  unbelievers  that  die  in  infancy  are  sent  to 
hell.  They  accept  the  challenge  of  the  Quaker  to  pro- 
duce scriptural  evidence,  and  they  strive  to  present  such 
evidence.  It  is  still  more  significant  that  they  are  un- 
willing to  take  the  position  that  all  children  of  believers 
who  die  in  infancy  are  saved.  They  charge  Keith  with 
slandering  them  in  his  statement  that  they  gloried  that 
none  of  their  children  were  reprobates.  They  assert  that 
they  never  affixed  election  to  a  visible  relation  to  the 
church  of  Christ.     They  held  that  God  elects  some  of 


336  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed?  [April, 

the  children  of  believers  as  he  elects  some  of  the  hearers 
of  the  gospel.  They  held  to  elect  infants  of  believers. 
As  Burgess  taught  the  baptismal  regeneration  of  elect 
infants  and  held  that  the  non-elect  were  not  regenerated 
even  if  they  had  been  baptized ;  they  held,  with  the 
Westminster  Confession,  that  "  elect  infants,  dying  in  in- 
fancy, are  regenerated  and  saved  by  Christ,  through  the 
Spirit,  who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how  he  pleas- 
eth  "  (x.  3).  The  Boston  ministers  in  this  argument  repre- 
sented the  unanimous  opinion  of  the  Congregational  and 
Presbyterian  churches  of  their  time.  No  one  has  ever 
produced  a  Congregational  or  Presbyterian  minister  of 
this  period  who  did  not  believe  in  the  damnation  of 
infants. 

The  significance  of  this  discussion  is  that  Keith  chal- 
lenges the  Presbyterian  and  Congregational  churches  on 
this  point,  and  that  the  Boston  ministers  here  reply,  in 
the  name  of  orthodox  Protestantism,  and  claim  that  only 
the  elect  infants  of  believers  who  are  in  the  covenant  are 
saved,  and  that  all  others  dying  in  infancy  are  lost  in  hell. 
Keith  stood  well-nigh  alone  in  1689.  The  Boston  minis- 
ters would  find  themselves  alone  if  they  could  come  forth 
into  our  times. 

(2)  THE  S.'\LVATION    OF  THE  HEATHEN. 

Keith  also  endeavors  to  prove  the  salvation  of  some  of 
the  heathen  :-- 

"  But  if  these  men,  who  own  that  said  Confession  of  Faith  [The  West- 
minster Confession]  enquire,  whether  all  those  honest  Gentiles  who  lived 
in  the  world  or  do  now  live  in  the  world,  who  have  not  had  Christ  cru- 
cified, outwardly  preached  unto  them,  but  were  diligent  to  frame  their 
lives  according  to  the  light  that  was  in  them,  died  in  a  state  of  salvation? 
I  say  yea,  they  did:  and  this  I  may  the  rather  say,  according  to  their 
own  doctrine.  For  what  if  they  had  not  the  perfect  knowledge  and 
faith  of  Christ  crucified,  when  they  lived?  Yet  they  might  have  it  at 
their  death,  to  wit,  in  the  passing  through  the  valley  of  the  shadow  of 
death,    according  to  Ps.   xxiii.  4"  (p.  114). 

The  Boston  ministers  reply  : — 


1890.]  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed?  337 

"  That  there  are  any  elect  among  pagans  who  never  had  the  gospel  offered 
them,  is  not  only  without  scripture  warrant,  but  against  its  testimony,  as 
hath  been  again  and  again  made  evident  "  (p.  92). 

Keith  stands  over  against  the  Presbyterian  and  Con- 
gregational churches  in  maintaining  that  God  has  his  elect 
among  the  heathen.  The  Boston  ministers  claim  that  it 
has  been  shown  again  and  again  that  there  are  no  elect 
among  pagans.  Modern  Presbyterians  have  gone  over  to 
Keith's  position. 

The  Boston  ministers  further  say : — 

"  What  he  saith  (p.  86)  that  all  have  an  opportunity  or  possibility  to 
be  converted  and  become  the  children  of  God,  is  ambiguous  :  if  the 
word  possibility  be  exegetical  of  the  former,  viz.,  opportunity,  it  is  non- 
sense, for  these  two  are  Dispartes:  if  he  intends  them  disjunctively  we 
deny  not  a  possibility,  for  all  mankind  are  salvable ;  but  for  an  oppor- 
tunity we  renounce  that,  for  where  the  meanes  of  salvation  are  not,  there 
is  no  opportunity.  But  what  is  all  this  to  the  purpose  ?  Or  what 
doth  it  make  against  the  reprobation  of  infants?  "  (P.  80.) 

Here  the  Boston  ministers  clearly  teach  that  the 
heathen  and  their  infants  are  all  reprobates.  They  have 
had  no  opportunity  of  salvation  and  therefore  cannot  be 
saved.  The  modern  church  goes  with  Keith  against  the 
church  of  the  seventeenth  century, 

(3)  THE  EXTENT  OF  THE  ATONEMENT. 

Keith  says : — 

"  Now  this  is  plainly  revealed  and  declared  in  the  Scriptures,  that  the 
condemnation  is  not  simply  that  Adam  sinned,  or  his  posterity  in,  and 
with  him,  but  that  light  is  come  into  the  world,  and  men  love  darkness 
more  than  this  light :  And  as  by  the  offence  of  one,  to  wit,  the  first 
Adam,  judgment  is  come  upon  all  to  condemnation  ;  even  so  by  the 
righteousness  of  one,  to  wit,  Christ,  the  second  Adam,  the  free  gift  is 
come  upon  all  to  justification  of  life.  And  though  men  generally  are 
by  nature,  children  of  wrath  (if  it  should  be  granted  or  allowed,  that  by 
nature,  signifieth  their  natural  condition  as  they  are  born  into  the  world) 
yet  by  the  great  mercy,  grace  and  favor  of  God  ;  they  all  have  an  oppor- 
tunity or  possibility  to  be  converted  and  become  the  children  of  God  " 
(p.  85). 

"  And  therefore  none  shall  finally  perish,  or  be  lost,  for  that  first  sin, 
according  to  Scripture,  but  for  their  actual  disobedience  here  in  this 
world,  and  their  final  unbelief  and  impenitency.  For  as  concerning  the 
VOL.  XLVII.   NO.   186.  II 


338  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed?  [April, 

judgment  and  punishment  of  the  first  sin,  it  was  immediately  inflicted 
after  the  fall,  to  wit,  the  death  of  all  in  Adam.  But  Christ,  the  second 
Adam,  by  his  death,  for  all  that  died  in  Adam,  doth  freely  give  unto  all 
his  free  gift,  that  cometh  upon  all  unto  justification  of  Life;  and  thus 
the  plaster  is  as  broad  as  the  sore,  and  the  medicine  as  universal  as  the 
disease  ;  and  it  is  not  simply  the  sin  or  disease,  but  the  refusing  and  re- 
jecting the  medicine  and  physic  that  is  the  cause  of  man's  final  de- 
struction "  (p.  89). 

Such    language  was   rare  in   the  seventeenth    century, 
but  it  is  familiar  to  us  in  these  days. 
To  this,  the  Boston  ministers  reply  : — 

"  The  case  stands  plainly  thus.  In  the  first  covenant  we  stand  con- 
demned for  the  breach  of  the  law,  either  as  Adam's  sin  is  ours  by  impu- 
tation, or  as  we  have  actually  broken  the  law.  Where  the  gospel  comes, 
Christ  is  offered,  a  way  is  discovered  to  life  by  Him.  Now  this  is  the 
proper  gospel  condemnation,  that  men  despise  him  and  will  not  follow 
this  light;  and  this  is  added  to  the  former  :  they  were  before  condemned 
by  the  law,  and  now  the  gospel  condemns  them  too  "  (p.  80). 

"  But  the  knack  is,  they  died  in  Adam,  and  Christ  by  his  death  for  all 
that  died  in  Adam  hath  discharged  all  of  that  imputation^  which  is  a  per- 
fectly Arminian  principle,  and  hath  been  enough  confuted  by  all  that 
have  written  against  them.  That  therefore  he  concludes  tha.t  f/one  do 
suffer  final  destruction  but  for  rejecting  the  physician,  makes  the  condition 
of  pagans  better  than  that  of  Christians  for  these  are  certain  to  escape 
destruction,  being  incapable  of  rejecting  the  physician  who  is  never  of- 
fered to  them,  whereas  millions  of  those  as  reject  him  perish  for  it. 
The  gospel  then  opens  a  door  to  man's  undoing,  which  else  he  had  been 
out  of  danger  of,  if  Christ  had  but  died  for  us  and  never  told  us  of 
it"  (p.  82). 

It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  the  Boston  ministers 
not  only  reject  the  view  of  Keith,  which  is  a  favorite 
view  at  present,  as  a  perfectly  Arminian  principle  ;  but 
they  also  shew  that  it  makes  the  condition  of  the  heathen 
safer  than  the  condition  of  men  living  in  Christian  lands ; 
an  argument  which  is  equally  valid  against  the  universal 
salvation  of  dying  infants. 

IV.       PROFESSOR  SIMSON  AND    HIS  TIMES. 

The  controversy  between  Keith  and  the  Boston  minis- 
ters shows  us  what  was  the  state  of  the  question,  and 
what  was  the  orthodox  Presbyterian  and  Congregational 


1890.]  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed  f  339 

doctrine  at  the  close  of  the  seventeenth  century.  In  the 
eighteenth  century  there  was  a  great  change  in  the  theolog- 
ical world.  After  the  Revolution  had  given  liberty  to  the 
non-conformists  in  England,  had  established  the  Presby- 
terian Church  in  Scotland,  and  had  secured  religious  lib- 
erty in  the  American  colonies,  it  soon  became  manifest  that 
there  were  Latitudinarian  elements  in  Presbyterian  and  Con- 
gregational circles  as  well  as  among  Episcopalians  and 
Quakers.  The  debate  over  the  Light  of  nature,  and  the 
office  of  the  human  Reason  in  the  Christian  religion,  the 
extent  of  the  Atonement,  the  right  of  subscription  to 
creeds  and  other  like  questions,  went  on  in  Presbyterian 
and  Congregational  circles,  and  it  was  not  long  until 
great  changes  took  place. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  trace  these  changes,  but  we 
have  not  the  space  at  present.  It  will  be  sufficient  for 
our  purpose  if  we  use  the  case  of  Professor  Simson  of 
Glasgow,  as  a  landmark.  Professor  Simson  was  a  lead- 
ing representative  of  the  Broad-churchmen  of  Scotland. 
He  was  charged  with  heresy,  and  his  case  was  before  the 
ecclesiastical  courts  for  many  years.  In  17 17  he  was 
warned  by  the  General  Assembly.  In  1725-26  he  was 
again  under  trial,  and  was  partially  sacrificed  for  the  peace 
of  the  church.  Some  of  the  charges  against  him  were, 
his  views  as  to  the  heathen  and  infants,  as  follows: — 

'•That  by  the  light  of  nature,  and  works  of  Creation  and  Providence, 
including  Tradition,  God  hath  given  an  obscure,  objective  revelation 
unto  all  men,  of  his  being  reconcilable  to  sinners,  and  that  ih&  heathen 
may  know  there  is  a  remedy  for  sin  provided,  which  may  be  called  an 
implicite  or  obscure  revelation  of  the  Gospel ;  that  it  is  probable;  that 
none  are  excluded  from  the  benefits  of  the  remedy  of  sin,  provided  by 
God,  and  published  twice  to  the  world,  except  those,  who  by  their  actual 
sin,  exclude  themselves,  and  slight  or  reject,  either  the  clearer  light  of 
the  gospel,  revealed  to  the  church,  or  that  obscure  discovery  and  offer  of 
grace  made  to  all  without  the  church.  That  if  the  heathen,  in  the  use 
of  the  means  they  have,  would  seek  the  knowledge  of  the  way  of  recon- 
ciliation, God  would  discover  it  to  them.  That  there  are  means  ap- 
pointed by  God  for  obtaining  saving  grace,  which  means,  when  diligently 


340  Have  the  Qiiakers  Prevailed  ?  [April, 

used  with  seriousness,  sincerity  and  faith  of  being  heard,  God  hath 
promised  to  bless  with  success  ;  and  that  the  going  about  these  means  in 
the  foresaid  manner,  is  not  above  the  reach  of  our  natural  ability  and 
power That  it  is  more  than  probable,  that  all  unbaptized  in- 
fants dying  in  infancy  are  saved,  and  that  it  is  manifest,  if  God  should 
deny  his  grace  to  all,  or  any  of  the  children  of  infidels,  he  would  deal 
more  severely  with  them,  than  he  did  with  fallen  angels." 

Thomas  Ridgley,  in  his  "Body  of  Divinity,"  consist- 
ing of  lectures  on  the  Westminster  Larger  Catechism, 
published  in  1731-33,  taught  the  damnation  of  infants 
and  the  heathen.  He  was  unwilling  to  go  so  far  as  to 
teach  the  certainty  of  the  salvation  of  the  infants  of  be- 
lievers that  died  in  infancy.  He  tries,  however,  to  miti- 
gate the  sufferings  of  lost  infants.  "The  condemnation 
of  infants,  who  have  no  other  guilt  but  that  of  original 
sin,  will  be  more  tolerable  than  that  of  the  heathen,  inas- 
much as  they  had  no  natural  capacities  of  doing  good  or 
evil."  2 

Isaac  Watts  in  1740  in  his  "Ruin  and  Recovery  of 
Mankind  "  argued  against  the  universal  salvation  of  in- 
fants, and  taught  that  the  infants  of  the  wicked  were  an- 
nihilated. ^ 

Dr.  Toplady,  a  Calvinistic  divine  of  the  Church  of 
England,  later  in  the  century,  makes  a  very  decided  ad- 
vance : — 

"If  Christ  died  only  for  them  that  believe,  or  in  whom  faith  is 
wrought ;  it  follows  that  faith  is  an  exceeding  great  and  precious  gift." 

In  a  note  he  adds  : — 

"No  objection  can  hence  arise  against  the  salvation  of  such  as  die  in 
infancy  (all  of  whom  are  undoubtedly  saved);  nor  yet  against  the  salva- 
tion of  God's  elect  among  the  heathens,  Mahomedans  and  others.  The 
Holy  Spirit  is  able  to  inspire  the  grace  of  virtual  faith  into  those  hearts 
(especially  at  the  moment  of  dissolution)  which  are  incapable  of  exert- 
ing the  explicit  act  of  faith."* 

*  Continuation  of  the  Second  Edition  of  the  Case  of  Mr.  John  Simson,  Profes- 
sor of  Divinity  in  the  University  of  Glasgow  (Edinburgh,  1728). 
-  Philadelphia  Edition  (1815),  p.  141.        *Works  (London,  1753).  p.  3096!  seq. 
*Works   (London,  1794),  Vol.    i.  p.  298. 


1890,]  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed?  341 

But  the  prevailing  view  in  Presbyterian  circles  through- 
out the  century  was  that  the  children  of  the  wicked  dying 
in  infancy  were  lost.  This  is  the  testimony  of  Dr.  An- 
derson of  Glasgow,  in  his  essay  introductory  to  Logan's 
"  Words  of  Comfort  for  Parents  Bereaved  of  Little  Chil- 
dren." He  testifies  that  in  the  first  decade  of  the  eight- 
eenth century — 

"it  was  with  hesitancy  and  bated  breath  and  amid  suspicions  of  their 
soundness  in  the  faith,  that  a  few  voices  were  heard  suggesting  K\i^ possi- 
bility that  all  who  die  in  infancy  are  saved." 

In  the  second  decade  of  the  century — 

"there  were  found  a  few  lifting  up  their  voices  in  protest  and  advocacy 
that  it  was  not  oxAy  possible,  hnt  probable,  that  all  who  died  in  infancy, 
having  been  guilty  of  no  actual  sin — no  rejection  of  Him  who  was  ap- 
pointed the  world's  Redeemer,  were  saved"   (pp.    xx-xxiv). 

He  then  goes  on  to  speak  of  a  later  date  when  some 
proclaimed  the  certainty  of  the  salvation  of  all  dying  in  in- 
fancy, and  were  met  by  the  censure  that  they  were  wise 
above  what  is  written. 

v.      DICKINSON  AND  HIS  ASSOCIATES. 

In  the  American  colonies,  Presbyterians  and  Congrega- 
tionalists  were  divided  into  the  Old  Side  and  the  New 
Side.  These  divisions,  however,  were  more  on  practical 
questions  than  on  doctrinal  issues.  The  questions  of  sub- 
scription to  creeds,  regeneration,  and  religious  experience, 
were,  however,  in  hot  dispute,  and  churches  were  divided 
by  the  controversies.  The  leader  of  the  New  Side  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church  was  Jonathan  Dickinson,  pastor  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  at  Elizabethtown,  N.  J.,  and  the 
first  president  of  the  College  of  New  Jersey.  In  1741  he 
published  his  "  True  Scripture  Doctrine  concerning  some 
Important  Points  of  Christian  Faith,"  discussing  the  five 
points  of  Calvinism,  according  to  the  Synod  of  Dort,  in 
five  discourses.  In  these  discourses  there  are  some  im- 
portant modifications  of  the  Calvinism  of  Dort  and  West- 
minster.    They  give  us   another  landmark  by  which  to 


342  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed ?  [April, 

test  Presbyterian  doctrine.      Dickinson  opens  up  the  doc- 
trine of  infant  salvation. 

"It  may  be  further  urged  against  this  proposition  'That  it  dooms 
multitudes  of  poor  infants  to  hell,  who  never  committed  any  actual  sin, 
and  is  therefore  a  doctrine  so  cruel  and  unmerciful,  as  to  be  unworthy 
of  God.' 

"  To  this  I  answer,  that  greatest  modesty  becomes  us  in  drawing  any 
conclusions  on  this  subject.  We  have  indeed  the  highest  encourage- 
ment to  dedicate  our  children  to  Christ,  since  he  has  told  us,  of  such  is 
the  kingdom  of  heaven;  and  the  strongest  reason  for  hope  as  to  the  happi- 
ness of  those  deceased  infants,  who  have  been  thus  dedicated  to  him. 
But  God  has  not  been  pleased  to  reveal  to  us,  how  far  he  will  extend  his 
uncovenanted  mercy,  to  others  that  die  in  infancy. — As,  on  the  one  hand, 
I  do  not  know  that  the  scripture  anywhere  assures  us,  that  they  shall  all 
be  saved.  So,  on  the  other  hand,  we  have  not  (that  I  know  of),  any  ev- 
idence, from  scripture  or  the  nature  of  things,  that  any  of  these  will 
eternally  perish. — All  those  that  die  in  infancy,  may  (for  aught  we  know), 
belong  to  the  election  of  grace;  and  be  predestinated  to  the  adoption  of 
children.  They  may,  in  methods  to  us  unknown,  have  the  benefits  of 
Christ's  redemption  applied  to  them  ;  and  thereby  be  made  heirs  of 
eternal  glory.  They  are  (it  is  true),  naturally  under  the  guilt  and  pol- 
lution of  original  sin.  But  they  may,  notwithstanding  this,  for  anything 
that  appears  to  the  contrary,  be  renewed  by  the  gracious  influences  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  ;  and  thereby  be  made  meet  for  eternal  life.  It  there- 
fore concerns  us,  without  any  bold  and  presumptuous  conclusions,  to 
leave  them  in  the  hands  of  that  God,  whose  tender  mercies  are  over  all  his 
works  .""^ 

In  this  passage  Jonathan  Dickinson  departs  from  the 
older  Calvinism  by  teaching  that  God  has  his  elect  even 
beyond  the  circle  of  the  children  of  believers.  He  is  not 
able  to  assert  that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  will  be 
saved.  But  he  is  unwilling  to  say,  on  the  other  hand, 
that  any  of  those  dying  in  infancy  are  lost.  He  claims 
that  the  Scriptures  do  not  decide,  and  he  leaves  them  "  in 
the  hands  of  that  God,  whose  tender  mercies  are  over  all 
his  works.'' 

The  theory  by  which  Dickinson  is  able  to  look  for  the 
salvation  of  infants  is  a  very  singular  one.  It  finds  ex- 
pression in  another  passage  of  his  works. 

^The  True  Scripture  Doctrine  concerning  Some  Important   Points   of  Christian 
Faith,  by  Jonathan  Dickinson,  A.  M.     (Boston.  1741). 


1890.]  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed  f  343 

In  1748  a  posthumous  work  appeared  entitled  "The 
Second  Vindication  of  God's  Sovereign  Free  Grace." 
Herein  Dickinson,  replying  to  his  adversary,  Mr.  Beach, 
says  : — 

"Yet  it  is  certainly  true  if  God  never  designed  and  will  therefore 
never  permit  any  but  what  are  of  the  elect  to  die  in  infancy.  If  so  (and  it 
may  be  so  for  aught  I  know)  then  all  that  die  in  infancy  will  undoubt- 
edly be  saved,  without  any  prejudice  to   the  doctrine  of  perseverance." 

In  the  former  passage  he  said  :  "  All  those  that  die  in 
infancy  may  (for  aught  we  know)  belong  to  the  election 
of  grace."  Here  he  puts  it  in  another  form,  and  thinks 
that  it  may  be,  for  aught  he  knows,  that  God  will  not 
permit  any  but  what  are  of  the  elect  to  die  in  infancy. 
Dickinson  could  hold  this  theory  because  of  the  empha- 
sis that  he  laid  upon  the  doctrine  of  Regeneration.  Re- 
generation to  him  takes  the  place  of  the  Effectual  Calling 
of  the  Westminster  divines.  And  this  he  separates  from 
Baptism  in  a  way  that  would  have  shocked  Burgess  and 
many  other  Westminster  divines,  who  believed  in  the 
baptismal  regeneration  of  elect  infants.  He  even  goes  so 
far  as  to  separate  regeneration  from  the  word  of  God  in  a 
way  that  the  Westminster  divines  would  have  regarded  as 
dangerous.  It  is  this  stress  upon  the  doctrine  of  regener- 
ation as  an  act  of  divine  efficiency  that  enabled  him  to 
conceive  of  the  regeneration  of  infants  apart  from  the 
means  of  grace. 

It  is  clear  from  these  passages  that  Dickinson  does  not 
go  as  far  as  Simson.  He  thinks  that  the  salvation  of  infants 
beyond  the  bounds  of  Christian  privileges  is  possible — 
there  are  no  positive  arguments  against  it,  but  he  is  not 
ready  to  assert  it  as  a  fact. 

He  does  not  go  so  far  as  this  in  his  view  of  the  heathen 
world.      He  says,  in  reply  to  Mr.  Beach, — 

"  And  therefore  you  must  produce  some  other  evidence  than  such  rea- 
soning as  this,  to  make  it  credible,  that  all  the  Hottentots  in  the  Bay  of  Sol- 
oina  (who  know  nothing  of  either  doctrinal  or   practical  religion,  nor  so 


344  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed?  [April, 

much  as  believe  the  Being  of  a  God)  with  many  more  such  like  barbar- 
ous savages,  have  all  of  them  grace  sufficient  for  their  eternal  salvation  " 
(p.  8i). 

He  argues  in  the  strongest  terms  that  the  race  had  its 
one  probation  in  Adam. 

"  It  has  been  universally  received  by  the  Protestant  churches  that  Adam 
was  appointed  by  God,  in  the  great  instance  of  his  probation  to  stand  or 
fall  for  his  Posterity,  as  well  as  himself:  that  had  he  stood,  they  had 
stood  in  him.  But  he  having  fallen,  they  have  fallen  in  him,  and  his 
guilt  and  corruption  descend  to  all  his  natural  posterity.  There  is  a  Har- 
mony of  their  confession  on  this  Head  :  as  I  think  might  be  easily  made 
appear.     Nor  is  there  one  Exception  that  I  know  of"  (p.  69). 

He  then  goes  on  to  argue  against  the  sufficiency  of 
common  grace  to  salvation. 

"  The  question  here  between  you  and  me,  is  this:  Whether  God  has 
universally  and  indifferently  given  to  all  men  Grace  sufficient  for  their 
eternal  Salvation  ;  or  whether  we  can  obtain  eternal  Life,  by  virtue  of 
our  Improvement  of  those  aids  of  Divine  Grace,  which  are  given  to  man- 
kind in  general,  at  least  under  the  Gospel,  without  other  special  and  dis- 
tinguishing Influences  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ? — This  you  hold  in  the  Af- 
firmative;  I  in  the  Negative. — The  question  is  not  about  the  sufficiency  of 
external  means  under  the  Gospel,  consider'd  in  their  place  and  order  ; 
but  about  inherent  Grace,  or  internal  Help  of  the  Spirit,  whether  all  men 
in  common  have  what  is  sufficient  to  Salvation  ?  "  (P.  71.) 

Jonathan  Dickinson  represents  the  broader  Calvinism 
of  the  American  Presbyterian  Church.  It  would  be  diffi- 
cult to  find  many  others  at  that  time  who  were  so  gener- 
ous in  their  Calvinism  as  he.  Jonathan  Edwards  is  much 
narrower.  In  1758  his  treatise  on  "Original  Sin"  was 
published,  in  which  he  takes  ground  for  the  damnation  of 
infants  in  the  following  plain  language  : — 

"It  may  not  be  improper  here  to  add  something  (by  way  of  supple- 
ment to  this  chapter,  in  which  we  have  had  occasion  to  say  so  much  about 
the  imputation  of  Adam's  sin)  concerning  the  opinions  of  two  divines,  of 
no  inconsiderable  note  among  the  dissenters  in  England,  relating  to  a 
partial  imputation  of  Adam's  first  sin. 

One  of  them  supposes  that  this  sin,  though  truly  imputed  to  infants, 
so  that  thereby  they  are  exposed  to  a  proper  punishment,  yet  is  not  im- 
puted to  them  in  such  a  degree,  as  that  upon  this  account  they  should  be 


1890.]  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed  ?  345 

liable  to  eternal  punishment,  as  Adam  himself  was,  but  only  to  temporal 
death,  or  annihilation.  Adam  himself,  the  immediate  actor,  being  made 
infinitely  more  guilty  by  it,  than  his  posterity,  on  which  I  would  observe, 
that  to  suppose,  God  imputes  not  all  the  guilt  of  Adam's  sin,  but  only 
some  little  part  of  it,  relieves  nothing  but  one's  imagination.  To  think 
of  poor  little  in/ants  bearing  such  torments  for  Adam's  sin,  as  they  some- 
times do  in  this  world,  and  these  torments  ending  in  death  and  annihila- 
tion, may  sit  easier  on  the  imagination,  than  to  conceive  of  their  suffer- 
ing eternal  misery  for  it.  But  it  does  not  at  all  relieve  one's  reason. 
There  is  no  rule  of  reason  that  can  be  supposed  to  lie  against  imputing  a 
sin  in  the  whole  of  it,  which  was  committed  by  one,  to  another  who  did 
not  personally  commit  it,  but  what  will  also  lie  against  its  being  so  im- 
puted and  punished  in  part.  For  all  the  reasons  (if  there  are  any)  lie 
against  the  imputation  ;  not  the  quantity  or  degree  of  what  is  imputed.  ,  .  . 
The  other  divine  thinks  there  is  truly  an  imputation  of  Adam's  sin,  so 
that  in/ants  cannot  be  looked  upon  as  innocent  creatures ;  yet  seems  to 
think  it  not  agreeable  to  the  perfections  of  God,  to  make  the  state  of  in- 
fants in  another  world  worse  than  a  state  of  non-existence.  But  this  to  me 
appears  plainly  a  giving  up  that  grand  point  of  the  imputation  of  Adam's 
sin,  both  in  whole  and  in  part.  For  it  supposes  it  to  be  not  right,  for 
God  to  bring  any  ei'il  on  a  child  of  Adam,  which  is  innocent  as  to  per- 
sonal sin,  WxtYiOwi  paying  for  it,  or  balancing  it  with  good ;  so  that  still 
the  state  of  the  child  shall  be  as  good,  as  could  be  demanded  injustice,  in 
a  case  of  mere  innocence.  Which  plainly  supposes  that  the  child  is  not  ex- 
posed to  any  \>xo}^ex punishment  at  all,  or  is  not  all  in  debt  to  divine  jus- 
tice, on  the  account  of  Adam's  sin."* 

Nathaniel  Emmons  also  held  to  the  theory  of  the  dam- 
nation of  non-elect  infants.  He  says  : —  ' '  From  all  the 
light  we  can  find  in  Scripture  on  this  subject,  it  seems  to 
be  the  most  probable  opinion  that  He  renews  only  some 
of  those  who  die  soon  after  they  become  morally  depraved 
and  guilty."  He  seems  to  think  that  if  any  died  before 
that  time  they  were  annihilated.  ^  The  younger  Edwards 
would  not  admit  that  there  were  any  elect  among  the 
heathen.^ 

These  theologians  represent  the  theology  of  the  Pres- 
byterian and  Congregational  churches  of  the  eighteenth 
century  in  America.  I  have  never  seen  an  extract  from 
an  American  Calvinistic  divine  of  that  century  who  be- 

'Works  of  President  Edwards,  Vol.  ii.  pp.  494,  495. 
"Works  (1842),  Vol.  iv.  pp.  510,  511.         » Works  (1842),  Vol.  ii.  p.  465. 


346  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed?  [April, 

lieved  in  the  salvation  of  any  of  the  heathen,  or  would  go 
any  further  than  Jonathan  Dickinson  in  the  doctrine  of 
the  salvation  of  infants. 

VI.    THE    NEW    DOCTRINES. 

With  the  beginning  of  the  nineteenth  century  theology 
in  America  began  to  move  rapidly  forwards,  and  great 
conflicts  were  the  result  during  the  first  half  of  the  cen- 
tury between  the  Old  School,  so-called,  and  the  New 
School.  But  beneath  these  discussions  still  greater  move- 
ments were  taking  place  that  are  now  showing  them- 
selves. The  intercourse  and  debates  between  the  several 
denominations  had  great  influence  in  modifying  the  Cal- 
vinism of  the  Congregational  and  Presbyterian  churches. 

The  divines  of  the  early  decades  of  the  century  were 
cautious  in  their  statements,  but  in  the  third  decade  the 
ministry  took  bolder  positions.  One  of  the  earliest  state- 
ments relating  to  the  salvation  of  the  heathen  and  infants 
was  by  Dr.  James  P.  Wilson  of  Philadelphia  in  1827.  He 
takes  the  following  position  with  reference  to  infants 
dying  in  infancy  : — 

"Since  indisposition  to  holiness  is  a  universal  character  of  our  na- 
ture ;  and  infants  inherit  disease  and  death,  the  wages  of  sin  ;  there  must 
exist  some  connection  between  us  and  our  first  parents,  whereby  we  are 
justly  introduced  into  the  world,  in  his  image  and  lapsed  state,  without 
our  choice.  This  doctrine  is  plainly  asserted  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Romans  and  elsewhere  ;  nevertheless  it  does  not  follow, 
that  any  dying  in  infancy  are  lost ;  since  their  salvation  by  Christ  is 
more  than  possible."^ 

Dr.  Wilson  also  says  with  reference  to  the  salvation  of 
the  heathen  : — 

"  How  far  therefore  the  abominations  of  the  heathen  can  be  excused 
in  their  dark  and  hopeless  alienation,  God  alone  must  decide,  nor  does 
it  become  us,  without  divine  warrant,  to  say  they  can  have  no  mercy  in 
Christ "  (p.  74). 

In  a  note  on  this  statement  he  says : — 

"When  a  Presbytery  are  of  opinion,  that  the  Scriptures  have  not  as- 
*An  Essay  on  the  Probation  of  Fallen  Man  (Phila.  1827),  p.  14. 


1 890.  ]  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed  ?  347 

serted  the  doctrine  of  the  unceremonious  damnation  of  the  heathen  ; 
they  ought  to  allow  this  exception  when  required,  either  at  licensure  or 
ordination.  The  difficulty  lies  in  the  answer  to  Question  60  of  the 
larger  catechism.  The  correct  answer  to  be  presented  to  it,  must  be  in 
the  negative,  for  it  is  certainly  true,  that  no  obedience  of  ours  to  any  law 
can  save  us.  The  assembly's  answer  in  denying  salvation  to  be  in  any 
other,  but  Christ,  is  also  true.  But  so  far  as  it  does,  though  indirectly, 
affirm,  that  faith  is  required  of  those  who  never  have  heard  the  evi- 
dence, it  is  neither  supported  by  the  Scriptures,  nor  by  reason  "  (pp.  loi, 
102). 

"The  greater  portion  of  mankind  has  not  yet  had  the  offer  of  Christ, 
but  they  pass  through  their  state  of  trial,  and  are  to  be  judged.  Must 
they  be  all  swept  off  to  perdition,  for  not  believing  that  which  it  has 
been  impossible  for  them  to  believe?  Neither  revelation,  nor  reason, 
unless  we  are  greatly  mistaken,  affirms  this  "  (p.  106). 

Here  Dr.  Wilson  takes  exception  to  the  statement  of 
the  Larger  Catechism  in  terms  that  anticipate  the  discus- 
sions of  recent  times. 

Dr.  Lyman  Beecher  in  1828  in  the  Spirit  of  the  Pil- 
grims wrote  a  series  of  articles  to  show  that  the  future 
punishment  of  infants  was  not  a  doctrine  of  Calvinism. 
He  evidently  did  not  know  of  the  writings  of  his  prede- 
cessors in  Boston  in  1690,  or  of  the  writings  of  the  West- 
minster divines  on  this  subject.  His  article  is  simply  a 
landmark,  showing  that  it  had  now  become  the  well-nigh 
universal  belief  that  all  infants  dying  in  infancy  were 
saved. 

Dr.  Archibald  Alexander  also  seems  to  have  held  this 
same  opinion  at  about  the  same  time.  But  the  earliest 
published  testimony  of  it  so  far  as  we  know,  is  in  his  let- 
ter to  Bishop  Mead,  in  which  he  says :  — 

"As  infants,  according  to  the  creed  of  all  reformed  churches,  are  in- 
fected with  original  sin,  they  cannot,  without  regeneration,  be  qualified 
for  the  happiness  of  heaven.  Children  dying  in  infancy,  must  therefore 
be  regenerated  without  the  instrumentality  of  the  Word  ;  and  as  the 
Holy  Scriptures  have  not  informed  us  that  any  of  the  human  family  de- 
parting in  infancy  will  be  lost,  we  are  permitted  to  hope  that  all  such 
will  be  saved,"* 

'Life  of  Arch.  .-Mexander  (1854),  p.  584. 


348  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed  ?  [April, 

Dr.  Alexander  here  advances  beyond  Dickinson  and 
Wilson,  and  teaches  new  doctrine  that  reverses  the  posi- 
tion of  the  Boston  ministers  of  1690.  Dickinson  thought 
that  the  Scriptures  left  the  question  undetermined 
whether  God  would  regenerate  all  dying  in  infancy  or 
not.  It  might  be  that  he  would  not  permit  any  but  the 
elect  to  die  in  infancy.  Alexander  hopes  that  infants 
are' saved  because  "the  Holy  Scriptures  have  not  in- 
formed us  that  any  of  the  human  family  dying  in  infancy 
will  be  lost."  The  Boston  ministers,  on  the  other  hand, 
held  "  that  God  hath  nowhere  revealed  to  us  that  he  hath 
accepted  the  Satisfaction  of  Christ  for  all  that  die  in  in- 
fancy and  where  there  is  no  revelation  there  is  no  ground 
for  faith."  The  old  Puritans  demanded  scriptural  author- 
ity for  an  article  of  faith,  but  Dr.  Alexander  follows  his 
hopes  and  his  reason  where  the  Scriptures  are  not  in  his 
way.     This  shows  a  total  change  of  attitude. 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge  takes  a  longer  step  in  advance. 
He  says;  "If  without  personal  participation  in  the  sin 
of  Adam,  all  men  are  subject  to  death,  may  we  not  hope 
that,  without  personal  acceptance  of  the  righteousness  of 
Christ,  all  who  die  in  infancy  are  saved  ?"i  This  again 
reverses  the  argument  of  the  Boston  ministers,  who  say 
that  infants  "  in  their  natural  birth  are  under  a  sentence 
of  condemnation  to  dye,"  because  of  Adam's  sin  trans- 
ferred upon  them  and  his  corruption  communicated  to 
them,  and  that,  "till  their  parents  do  openly  profess  the 
gospel  and  submit  to  it,  as  long  as  they  abide  in  their 
gentilism,  their  children  were  also  unclean,  and  so  appar- 
ently lying  under  guilt  and  liable  to  eternal  death."  It  is 
just  their  participation  in  Adam's  sin  that  involves  them 
in  eternal  punishment.  And  it  is  only  by  their  personal 
participation  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ  through  their 
believing  parents  that  they  can  be  saved.  This  was  the 
older  Calvinism.     It  is  a  new  Calvinism   that  teaches  that 

*Com.  on  Romans  (1864),  p.  298. 


1890.]  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed?  349 

there  is  either  subjection  to  death  without  personal  partici- 
pation in  Adam's  sin,  or  salvation  without  personal  par- 
ticipation in  the  righteousness  of  Christ.  Dr.  Hodge's 
new  Calvinism  as  set  forth  in  this  and  in  other  kindred 
statements,  as  Dr.  Landis  has  clearly  shown,  subverts 
the  Reformed  doctrine  of  Original  Sin  and  the  Protestant 
doctrine  of  Justification  by  Faith.  ^ 

Dr.  Charles  Hodge  in  another  passage  expressly  ex- 
empts infants  from  the  exercise  of  faith. 

"Faith  is  the  condition  of  justification.  That  is,  so  far  as  adults  are 
concerned,  God  does  not  impute  the  righteousness  of  Christ  to  the  sin- 
ner, until  and  unless,  he  (through  grace)  receives  and  rests  on  Christ 
alone  for  salvation,"  * 

This  new  doctrine  reaches  its  climax  in  Dr.  A.  A. 
Hodge,  who  teaches  that  "in  the  justification,  therefore, 
of  that  majority  of  the  elect  which  die  in  infancy,  per- 
sonal faith  does  not  mediate."^  And  thus  we  have  the 
doctrine  of  the  universal  salvation  of  infants  elaborated  at 
the  expense  of  the  vital  principle  of  justification  by  faith 
only,  and  the  Augustinian  doctrine  of  original  sin. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  the  various  ways  of  explaining 
the  phrase  "elect  infants  dying  in  infancy."  Dr.  Shedd 
interprets  this  as  a  classical  election  of  all  infants  dying 
in  infancy.  Dr.  Patton  tells  us  that  the  — 
"Confession  teaches  that  only  the  elect  will  be  saved;  that  those  of 
the  elect  who  are  capable  of  faith  are  saved  by  faith;  that  those 
of  the  elect,  such  as  elect  infants  dying  in  infancy,  who  are  incapa- 
ble of  faith  are  saved  without  faith.  The  antithesis  is  not  between  elect 
and  non-elect  infants,  but  between  elect  infants  that  die  in  infancy  and 
elect  infants  that  do  not  die  in  infancy."* 

This  is  very  remarkable  exegesis.  The  Confession  no- 
where teaches  that  there  is  salvation  of  those  incapable  of 
faith  without  faith.  No  sound  Calvinist  has  ever  taught 
such  doctrine.     It  subverts  the  doctrine  of  Justification  by 

^Landis,  Doctrine  of  Original  Sin  (1884),  pp.  12  et  seq.,  254  et  seq. 

"Systematic  Theology,  Vol  iii.  p.  118.         'Princeton  Review  (1878),  p.  315. 

*rhe  Revision  of  the  Confession  of  Faith,  Pf.  p.  7. 


350  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed?  [April, 

faith  only.  It  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Antinomians  of  the 
seventeenth  century  that  was  expressly  repudiated  by 
Westminster  divines  in  many  passages  of  their  works.  It 
is  one  of  the  Antinomian  features  of  the  new  Calvinism  of 
the  school  of  Dr.  Hodge.  There  is  nothing  in  the  con- 
text of  the  tenth  chapter  to  suggest  that  there  is  an  an- 
tithesis between  elect  infants  dying  in  infancy  and  elect 
infants  that  do  not  die  in  infancy.  And  even  if  there 
were  such  an  antithesis,  the  implication  would  still  remain 
that  as  there  are  elect  infants  who  do  not  die  in  infancy 
and  non-elect  infants  who  do  not  die  in  infancy,  so  the 
same  two  classes  of  elect  and  non-elect  are  among  those 
who  die  in  infancy.  The  so-called  "  legal  principle  "  that 
requires  us  to  find  our  materials  for  the  construction  of  a 
document  within  the  four  corners  of  the  document  is  not  a 
sound  principle  for  exegesis  of  historical  documents,  and 
is  not  recognized  by  historical  critics.  But  if  it  were  a 
sound  principle,  those  who  remind  historians  that  "a 
great  deal  of  most  valuable  historical  research  becomes 
useless  so  far  as  the  question  of  confessional  interpretation 
is  concerned,"  should  also  bear  in  mind  that  a  great  deal 
of  valuable  dogmatic  theorizing  and  speculation  is  useless 
in  the  interpretation  of  what  is  plainly  stated  between  the 
two  covers  of  the  book. 

That  eminent  Baptist  theologian.  Dr.  A.  H.  Strong,  is 
unable  to  recognize  any  salvation  of  infants  without  faith, 
and  accordingly  he  takes  the  position  that, — 

"Since  there  is  no  evidence  that  children  dying  in  infancy  are  regener- 
ated prior  to  death,  either  with  or  without  the  use  of  external  means,  it 
seems  most  probable  that  the  work  of  regeneration  may  be  performed  by 
the  Spirit  in  connection  with  the  infant  soul's  first  view  of  Christ  in  the 
other  world. "^ 

Others  look  for  a  probation  for  infants  in  the  middle 
state.  Whatever  view  we  may  take  as  to  the  time,  place, 
and  mode  of  the  infant's   ingrafting   into  Christ,  it  is  evi- 

^Sytematic  Theology  (1886),  p. 357. 


1 890.  ]  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed  ?  351 

dent  that  the  doctrine  of  infant  salvation  will  never  be  settled 
until  we  not  only  explain  the  regeneration  of  the  infant, 
but  also  the  infant's  appropriation  of  Christ  by  faith,  and 
the  order  of  salvation  in  the  infant's  conscious  experience. 
Dr.  Shedd  teaches  a  doctrine  of  grace,  in  connection 
with  his  doctrine  of  elect  heathen,  which  is  novel  among 
Calvinistic  divines.      He  says  : — 

"There  is  not  a  transgressor  on  earth,  in  Christendom  or  heathen- 
dom, who  is  not  treated  by  his  Maker  better  than  he  deserves ;  who  does 

not  experience  some  degree  of  the  divine  compassion This  is 

mercy  to  the  souls  of  men  universally,  and  ought  to  move  them  to  repent 

of  sin  and  forsake  it Common  Grace  is  great  and  undeserz'ing  mercy 

to  a  sinner,  and  would  save  him  if  he  did  not  resist  and  frustrate  it 

Scripture  denies  that  God  is  under  obligation  to  follow  up  His  defeated 
common  grace  with  His  irresistible  special  Grace. "^ 

Dr.  Shedd  says  that  common  grace  would  save  men  if 
they  did  not  resist  and  frustrate  it.  The  Westminister 
Confession  teaches  no  such  doctrine.  There  is  nothing 
effectual  in  common  grace.  There  is  no  saving  power  in 
it  according  to  the  older  Calvinism,  but  only  preparatory 
virtue  leading  up  to  saving  grace.  Dr.  Dickinson  expressly 
denies  that  "  God  has  universally  and  indifferently  given 
to  all   men  grace  sufficient  for  their  eternal   salvation." 

The  statement  that  God's  common  grace  has  been 
"  defeated  "  is  a  strange  one  for  a  Calvinist  to  make.  Can 
the  sinner  defeat  God's  purpose  of  redemption  ?  If  he 
can  defeat  common  grace,  why  not  also  special  grace  ? 

There  is  in  this  doctrine  of  Dr.  Shedd  a  tendency  toward 
the  modern  doctrine  that  this  life  is  a  probation  for  all 
men,  which  is  in  remarkable  accord  with  the  Quaker  Keith, 
but  is  far  beyond  the  mild  statement  of  Culverwell  in  his 
"Light  of  Nature."  Dr.  Morris,  however,  attains  the 
height  of  this  departure  from  the  Older  Calvinism  in  his 
theory  that — 

"In  some  way  or  other,  and   to  some  extent   or  other,  God  is  actually 
*  Presbyterian  and  Reformed  Review,  pp.  ro-12. 


352  Have  the  Quakers  Prevailed?  [April, 

trying  and  testing  every  human  being  who  has  reached  moral  conscious- 
ness as  to  the  great  alternatives  of  right  or  wrong,  duty  or  pleasure,  obe- 
dience or  disloyalty  to  Him,  "  and  that  "  the  multitudes  whom  the  Great 
Swiss  reformer  anticipated  seeing  in  the  celestial  life  may,  by  the  large 
grace  of  God  bringing  them  to  repentance  and  obedience  during  their 
earthly  pilgrimage,  possibly  attain  with  us  to  that  beatific  home."^ 

Dr.  Morris  is  nearer  to  George  Keith  at  this  point  than 
to  the  great  Swiss  reformer. 

It  will  be  clear  from  this  sketch  of  the  history  of  opinion 
that  the  views  of  the  Boston  ministers  of  1690  and  of  the 
Westminster  divines  of  1646,  on  the  matters  discussed  in 
this  paper,  have  been  abandoned  by  the  Presbyterian  and 
Congregational  churches  of  our  day,  and  that  the  views 
advocated  by  the  Quakers  Penn  and  Keith  have  prevailed, 
and  are  now  the  common  doctrines  in  our  churches. 

'Is  there  Salvation  after  death  ?  pp.  i66,  190. 


